A good year for the NZ Initiative

The NZ Initiative was born out of a merger of the NZ Institute and the Business Roundtable. When it was formed, there was interest about whether it would just be the NZ Business Roundtable under a different name.

The NZBR made a great contribution to New Zealand, but in its latter years was seen as too ideological and had a fractious relationship with many political parties.

I think the NZ Initiative has done really well to be a consistent and intelligent policy and ideas shop, while being able to work constructively with politicians across the political spectrum. As they approach many issues from a broadly classical liberal perspective, they of course do not have everyone agree with them. But their contributions are seen as thoughtful and constructive.

Their annual report showcases what they have achieved in the last year, and is a good read. But it is two of the quotes I wish to copy:

“I often disagree with the New Zealand Initiative’s proposals – but that’s the point. We need more challenging ideas, quality research and thought leadership in New Zealand, not less. The New Zealand Initiative makes a valuable contribution to robust debate in this country. I wish there were more institutions like them, across the spectrum, committed to finding solutions to the great challenges of our time.” James Shaw, Green Party Co-Leader

“I appreciate the Initiative’s prolific and much needed contribution to policy debate. We don’t always agree but the debate is always worth having.” Phil Twyford MP, Labour Spokesperson for Housing, Building and Construction, and Auckland Issues

I couldn’t imagine the former NZBR having a Labour and Green MP talk about their valuable contribution and useful debates. It’s a sign of their success.

artemisia

Their articles, papers, newsletters and events are thoughtful, engaging and with mostly practical suggestions. But there is not much evidence that any action is resulting from them in a timely way or indeed at all. Why is that?

Compare results with some of the other policy proponents out there. For example the sugar tax lobby, the ‘healthy homes’ / rental warrant of fitness lobby, the Keytruda lobby, the anti-poverty activists, cage eggs, off shore mining and so on. They get way more air time and public support than the NZI’s issues.

Huevon

David Garrett

Hugh: Sorry to be a pedant, but the expression is “CAST aspersions…”

One thing I admired about Roger Kerr was the good humour with which he would put up with some pretty awful slagging off from the great unwashed…He was far more tolerant than I would have been in similar circumstances…

Their articles, papers, newsletters and events are thoughtful, engaging and with mostly practical suggestions. But there is not much evidence that any action is resulting from them in a timely way or indeed at all. Why is that?

Compare results with some of the other policy proponents out there. For example the sugar tax lobby, the ‘healthy homes’ / rental warrant of fitness lobby, the Keytruda lobby, the anti-poverty activists, cage eggs, off shore mining and so on. They get way more air time and public support than the NZI’s issues.

Maybe there is a quiet revolution simmering away in Parliament, MBIE, MoH. Not holding my breath though.
=============================================
Perhaps it indicates just how far our community has moved to the socialist beat and really how little good policy seems to matter to the pollies.

peterwn

What bothered me about Business Round Table was Roger Kerr would commission reports advocating complete privatisation of the electricity industry. But when there was a power squeeze and spot prices skyrocketed, BRT members would bellyache for the Government to ‘do something’ about it. Similarly BRT advocated Fire Service reform which failed because the firefighters could easily get public opinion on their side. I think this attempted reform was one reason that National continued to lose support in the early 2000’s.